Revision as of 01:39, 17 March 2008

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Edit this section for new requests

Add new requests to the top of the page. Old requests will be automatically archived off the bottom three days after the last time stamp.

Wikimachine (talk · contribs)

Case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Liancourt Rocks.

The user banned (Wikimachine) has continued to edit with very obvious and sarcastic comments, attempting in my opinion to continue disrupting the same pages as he did before.

He has edited from various anonymous IP's making essentially the same arguments as he did before on the same pages, some which are edited by very few other editors. Some example IP's he has used are 69.245.41.113, 69.180.210.99, 69.180.193.52, etc.

Aside from these comments being essential copy and pastes of his old arguments, and him signing with "A former Wikipedian," and referring to how he will "continue the fight when is allowed back in a few months" they are from the same geographic area as the original user (see ]). If you would like further information please let me know. If this should be put somewhere else and not here also please let me know and I will follow up. Thank you very much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.165.177 (talk) 2008-03-15T23:46:29 (UTC)

Block evasion is inexcusably bad enough for Misplaced Pages if the ip saying is really right. However, I just bring something for your information. This IP user, 128.205.165.177 (talk · contribs) or 128.205.33.79 (talk · contribs) whose dns is designated to SUNY Buffalo is either Komdori (talk · contribs) or LactoseTI (talk · contribs) who suddenly disappeared around the last early November.. In addition, this user seems to be associated with the Japanese bulletin board, 2channel because I saw the same comment as this at the board. We need to have a stronger enforcement to Japan-Korean articles at this point for editors can safely edit and discuss without stalking or being watched by other off-wiki board like 2channel has done . Japanese editors from the board has done something at Talk:Sea of Japan. If you need more information or translation, I will follow up it as well. Thanks.--Appletrees (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Both findings (Wikimachine and LactoseTI/Komdori) are certainly correct. Wikimachine's block extended to another year from today. Appletrees, can you give us a link to the corresponding posting on 2ch please? These days, I'm certainly inclined to take no crap from people who use anon IPs and post to 2ch. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

My computer is getting out of order, so I can't provide translation from Japanese text right now, so leave the link which shows their talking about Wikimachine's block evasion on Jan. 19th. 2008. See No.133 ~136 Here is presumably Wikimachine's ip addres, so take a look at the contribution on the same date. See this ip address, one of which the Buffalo anon mentioned. 69.245.41.113 (talk · contribs). In addition, according to 2channel, more than two editors currently reside in east coast of US. I will add the relevant link later. One is assumed as this user per his engagement in Pyrus pyrifolia and Yakiniku.

They seem to move their forum regarding English Misplaced Pages and me. I would see my name on some "worst bulletin board" (it really exist in 2channel) They talk about you a lot as well on the same link (see No. 637, 645, 661~670) --Appletrees (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I love it when they talk about me as "superman". Especially the way it comes across in Google translator. "Now is the perfect superhuman stopped shooting death sentence mode I kill you immediately declared, is perfect superhuman Gil's left to settle down (Especially now that superhumanはあっPURUTO perfect honeymoon relationship, very dangerous)". Yeahhrrr. I feel like a ninja. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Liftarn (talk · contribs)

Arbcom case:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles,
• 'Case Final Decisions' .
• Liftarn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor Liftarn (talk · contribs) has been making:

• BLP violations - "Samuel Weems, a conspiracy theorist".
• Using Weasel/Point terminology on pro-Israel situations and, in contrast, use of anti-Israel propaganda sites (electronicintifada.net) as source: "claimed", "controversial", "according to", (electronicintifada.net) as source - .
• Removal of secondary sources - "promotional clutter" and again .

Liftarn (talk · contribs) has been violating Purpose of Misplaced Pages spirit removing sources and claiming OR on each and every word that might be critical of the article's subject. He also routinely uses the "per talk" reasoning for edits not discussed or at least clearly not agreed upon on talk.

His latest edit , explained with "We have been over this already." removed well cited material who's removal was not discussed anywhere, and also the removal of two valid external links which he previously removed under the "promotional clutter" claim.

I've tried resolving issues with him and opened a WP:3O request, but frankly, discussions were going nowhere and I've personally had it with the editor's refusal to get the points raised, follow WP:NPOV and editorial process.

Respectfully. Jaakobou 23:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Weems is dead, BLP is scarcely relevant. The description may well be accurate anyway. Most of the diffs presented are from February and January, though I admit this is less than impressive. The current dispute over Carlos Latuff does not seem sufficiently serious to merit administrative attention at this time. Try MedCabal or MedCom if disputes continue. Liftarn's editing is less than perfect but no worse than many others who go unsanctioned. Moreschi (talk) 14:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Any suggestions on how to handle the false edit summaries and content removal? I actually submitted this post with hopes for a warning being issued to Liftarn, nothing more. Jaakobou 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning for what? As regards the paragraph he removed from Latuff's bio, I agree. We don't need to go on about how controversial the contests are that Latuff chooses to enter. In an article on the contest, that fine - how is it relevant to Latuff's bio? The guy's obviously a nutter, no need to overstress the point. Nor is removing sourced content a crime in itself if said content is clearly off-topic. Moreschi (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, I figured a warning for the "per talk" and "promotional clutter" false edit summaries was in order. He waited another full week without any talk page comment and removed the external links (and some extra material) again... this is clearly not the right way for an established editor to behave.

p.s. If he wants to narrow down the "how controversial" paragraph, he should at least make note that this is his intention.

p.p.s. (offtopic content note) without winning 2nd place on the Iranian holocaust denial extravaganza, I'm not certain Latuff would have an article on wiki. Jaakobou 14:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(persisting) Issue seems to be persisting (latest Liftarn diff). I honestly can't deal with the false edit summary issue anymore -- this time it's "It has already been discussed and agreed upon." -- and request assistance. Jaakobou 20:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Astrotrain

{{report top|Astrotrain placed on probation; limited to one revert per week on pages related to The Troubles (including articles, templates and other project pages). Thatcher 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Current issue moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. Case link Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Thatcher 22:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is nothing being done to stop this editor continuing to edit war and POV pushing, he was named in the arbcom but instead of answering his case there he decided to disappear until the arbcom was ended, he was also involved in mediation on the same issue, and dispite being unable to provide WP:RS to support his edits he continued to edit war throughout the mediation which resulted in the mediation process being abandoned.

He has recently started to edit war again on the issue in breach of principles#2 and principles#3 of the arbcom ruling. I have reported him in the past couple of days to two admins, to date neither have done anything about it. Some of the articles and templates he has been disruptive on include:

• Portal:Northern Ireland/Intro
• List of Northern Irish flags
• List of British flags
• {{British flags}}

Astrotrain has a been blocked numerous times for both edit warring on this issue and making personal attacks on other editors and myself, he also came back as a possible for using anon IPs to continue evade 3RR in edit wars.--Padraig (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The integrity of an article's stability? must be preserved. Thus 'two' options - 1) Page protections or 2) Blockings. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Astrotrain seems to be going back into SPA mode, starting edit wars by adding the Ulster Banner without consensus, making no attempt to discuss things, adding flags in needless provocative ways - eg 1801 in Ireland. This disruption should be nipped in the bud really. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not overly familiar with the (apparently) lengthy debate that has been had about this issue, but there does appear to be a number of different editors reverting Astrotrain's additions of the Ulster Banner. Given the fact that it isn't currently an official flag, its difficult to see why its additions to these articles is particularly germane. In addition, the addition of flags to pages is over-used generally. I have already asked Astrotrain to stop edit-warring over the addition of the Union Flag to 1801 in Ireland. I extend that request to include these other articles too. If he continues then I guess we can look at other options. As other editors have found out, there is a rapidly decreasing tolerance for this sort of behaviour though, I'm hopeful he will appreciate that. Rockpocket 23:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I have also noticed that Black Kite has also warned him that he will be put on probation should this continue. So, I guess we wait and see. If there are further flag related reversions without prior discussion, please note it here. Rockpocket 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be delighted to see 99% of the flags removed from wikipedia, but however tedious the little national emblems are in list entries, Astrotrain has been busy adding huge flags to articles where they are barely relevant and — as he well knows — highly provocative. As well as the addition of the Union Flag to 1801 in Ireland, he also added the Ulster Banner to 1953 in Ireland (in this edit), which seems to me to be nothing gratuitous mischief-making. There is a separate 1953 in Northern Ireland article where it might have some relevance (though it seems pretty marginal to me), but I can't see any useful purpose its addition to 1953 in Ireland. The whole Ulster flag debate is a minefield, and it took a lot of effort by many folks to achieve some stability there, and trying to reopen it like this is disruptive (his comment here of "how can a flag be POV?" is thorougly unpersuasive faux-naivety). I'd support a crackdown on this, and I am glad that Astrotrain has been warned of possible probation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I note that you didn't mention cases where I added the Tricolour, or are you ok with that one as you are Irish? Is this just another case of a set of articles that no one can edit in case one of the Irish editors is offended? Misplaced Pages is not censored for images of prophets or the human body, so why are flags different? In each case, there was a good reason for adding flag images. Astrotrain (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, flags a ridiculously overused on wikipedia, and there is for example guidance against the use of {{flagicon}} beside place of birth. This isn't a matter of censorship, it is matter of not going around looking for opportunities to splat a huge flag on pages where it is at best marginally relevant, and you would be in similar trouble if you were going around adding huge pictures of Jesus in articles making a brief mention of him. In the cases where the flag is relevant, such as the first use of the tricolour, a small icon will do fine, with a link to the article on the flag explaining its design and history. You are trying to use wikipedia as a device for nationalist flag-waving, and I deplore that whatever flag is being waved. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Astrotrain in this edit here you inserted the Ulster Banner saying it was the unofficial flag of Northern Ireland, it was never the official flag of Northern Ireland not even during the period 1953-72, so can you explain why you feel its necessary to include a image of a governmental banner that has been defunct for thirty-five years in the portal for Northern Ireland today.--Padraig (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As normal, you bring nationality of editors into it. Is that the be all and end all of your arguement? Your looking to edit war, simple as and if things quiten down too much you can be counted on to start thing up again. --Domer48 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there is different nationalities is a good thing. However, it seems to me that people are being too sensitive. We should not be a situation that we cannot use images in case it offends one nationality. Describing the national flag as "POV" is one example of this sensitivity. Astrotrain (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Images are supposed to be relevent to the content of the article, adding the Ulster Banner as you are doing is POV pushing and you have continously refused to provide RS to support your claims it a national flag, numerous sources have been provided to prove it isn't and never was a national flag. This is also the same claim you failed to support in the flag mediation when your idea of compromise is that you could add the Ulster Banner to any article or template in wikipedia, dispite failing to support its use with RS.--Padraig (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To Astrotrain: By continously re-adding these flags, you (rightly or wrongly) create the impression of having a political agenda behind your edits. The impression may hurt your chances of making your edits stick. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And if they persist?--Domer48 (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If Wiki has done one thing it has put me off flags! Look at the article Irish Sea - every bleeping town has its "national" bleeping flag attached (and NI had the Teddy Bear's head). Daftness. Should Isle of Man, Wales and England not have the Union Jack as well? I mean that layout makes it appear as if Ireland is just another part of the UK? And so on......SCRAP the damn things. Sarah777 (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

relisting with new timestamp pending resolution. Thatcher 12:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Can a decision be made on this issue.--Padraig (talk) 14:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Padraig, unless Gino gets involved you will not have an Admin doing anything at all. See this is an issue that can be resolved by Administrative action, simplys lacks the will. --Domer48 (talk) 12:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response Certainly enough evidence here to place Astrotrain on the one revert per week limitation. Thatcher 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved notices

Jaakobou (talk · contribs)

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Since there are no objections, archive without further comment. El_C 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See also WP:ANI#Jaakobou; Tiamut's mourning box – Jaakobou's exams box, Jaakobou's exams box (ammended)

Note that I am a breath away from censuring Jaakobou for his mockery; of User:Tiamut's notice. This intentional bad blood will not be tolerated. El_C 19:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Durova (Jaakobou's mentor) seems to mistake her role for a defense attorney (I'd appreciate informed comments, instead ) . El_C 02:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please refactor, El C. I have serious concerns that this aggressive approach is escalating the conflict. El C threatened Jaakobou with a block after Jaakobou had already taken steps to remedy the proboem and apologized, and then El C opened two noticeboard threads. If Jaakobou needed to do more to set things right he would have cooperated. Additional eyes would be very welcome here. Durova 09:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

OK additional eyes - Jaakobou's notice and the photo caption were among one of the more offensive things I've seen on a user page. Yes you get people posting stupid Nazi references and pictures etc, but this was in effect a personal attack on another user, using the recent deaths of 100s of people as a vehicle to do that. And I'm sorry Durova but you are letting him off the hook here and not discharging your duties as a mentor. You have suggested that he apologised, when all he did was make a brief grudging apology on his own talk page after being challenged by other editors, and after initially refusing to, and saying he would keep the notice up until Tiamut complained personally; and have claimed that he had "taken steps to remedy the problem" when he had merely tweaked the wording of the notice and continued to reinsert it on his user page, despite it being removed. The point you make about all the hard work Jaakobou did in restoring the photo, and the fact that it was started before Tiamut's notice went up, is entirely irrelevant - it's the "in better days" caption that is at issue, as it also brazenly parodies Tiamut's user page and makes a direct linkage between the fate of Palestinians and American Indians, the significance of which Nishidani has explained elsewhere. Given that point, I was also a little disturbed by your eulogising of the work that was done on the photo with the words "something special" and "brilliant". What makes this all the more farcical is the fact that Jaakobou is making a string of vexatious and frivolous complaints about other editors, myself included, here at WP:AE. His behaviour needs to be sorted out once and for all I'm afraid, and if his mentor won't help with that, then another administrator needs to. --Nickhh (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Nickhh,

(1) I'd never make an intentional mockery of the death of 107 people (militants or non-militants) in Gaza or elsewhere regardless of the Israel-Hamas war circumstances.

(2) This is the first time, and shocking also, I've heard about Israelis supposedly comparing Palestinians to Indians to make fun of Palestinians... Both Israeli culture and I have utmost respect to Native Americans and their history. My favorite song is 'Indian Sunset' by Elton John and Northern Exposure was a favorite watch, but I'm afraid that anything I say will be portrayed with bad faith; On This occasion, I probably brought it upon myself by not taking possible undertones into more serious consideration... I've already made a second apology to my blunder.

(3) I had good reason to open an WP:AE post after you followed and reverted me on 6 separate articles which you've never edited.

Cordially, Jaakobou 12:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not open two noticeboard threads. I archived the one on ANI which East718 initially handled, and started the thread here, instead.

The modified box, too, was unacceptable. It still looked identical in key respects (colour, text size, text lengh, image size/placement).

Jaakobou was issued one warning, ignored it, then a second one. Durova, however, has been acting in a highly problematic manner.

She immediately offered to write Jaakobou's unblock request (he wasn't blocked), without even informing herself of the fact that he was mimicking the death of people by comparing it to his upcoming exams (!) .

Then when she found out it wasn't an innocent notice, she offered no apology for disrupting my efforts to keep the peace. She continued with long-winded, unhelpful notes about pictures, and so on, which had very little to do with anything .

Then, she resorted to questioning my neutrality, involvement, and by extension, fairness and evenhanded, for no apparent reason, while citing some rather shoddy, poorly-linked "evidence." Now that digging dirt on me didn't succeed, I wonder what's next. I don't think the mentorship is working; she's too emotionally involved, opining before looking at the facts (see 1st sentence & 4th paragraph). El_C 11:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't excuse the offense much, but I've made a second apology to my blunder.

Consulting with Durova, I removed what we both thought was the offending part of the box... this change not being accepted by you, an involved admin, is something I can't quite control but I accepted that this edit did not fully address your concerns and accepted responsibly for it. I can't spare anymore time to this issue since I do have exams to attend to.

With respect, Jaakobou 12:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

About this "change": it's an understatement that I still find it difficult to comprehend how both of you failed to see that an amended box, which still looks much the same, would be in any way acceptable, and that, somehow, "involved" moi curtailed that peaceful gesture. You and Durova can continue with the argumentum ad nauseam of calling me an involved admin. It is false, of course. And, regardless, any admin would have done what I did: East18 warned you once, you reverted, I warned you a second time, you reverted, I warned you a third time, sternly, then, finally, you stopped. Now I seem to have become (both of) your target. That's fine, I'm more than willing to step forward and give others some relief. El_C 16:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice that Jaakobou has now offered what appears to be a sincere, albeit somewhat belated, apology to Tiamut on his talk page.

While I know Jaakobou has acquired something of a reputation for tendentiousness (the accuracy of which I am not in a position to judge), he has not previously AFAIK been known to act maliciously toward other users. Although I doubt he was quite as blissfully unaware of the connotations of his notice as he claims, it may be that he failed to realize the full implications of it. I think I can accept, therefore, that this may amount to an isolated lapse of judgement on his part rather than a wilfully malicious attempt to humiliate another user. I can't speak for Tiamut of course, but in light of this latest act of contrition from Jaakobou I personally am satisfied that he now understands the gravity of his error and will therefore be unlikely to repeat it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, generally, though I have to say I'm not fully convinced by Jaakobou's comments above and I'm not impressed by his initial response to El C's complaints. I note that blocking, topic banning etc. isn't meant to be punitive. Do we have cause to believe that Jaakobou is likely to repeat this or similar actions? If not, I suggest that we close this with a caution to Jaakobou and move on. (Note that this shouldn't give Jaakobou licence to do something like this again. If he does, I would fully support taking an enforcement action against him.) -- ChrisO (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) El C is mistaken when he supposes how much I understood when I intervened. In fact the first thing I did was advise Jaakobou to withdraw the offending reference and post an apology; it was imperative that he do so promptly. On the heels of those corrective steps El C's block warning was counterproductive. A direct result of that warning was several hours' delay in the follow-up apology that Tiamut deserved. It is by no means easy to show an editor the seriousness of a thoughtless gaffe when he thinks he is being singled out for punitive reasons. The consistently sharp edged tone of El C's subsequent posts both here and at my user talk fed Jaakobou's worries, and it does little good for the overall dispute to make barbs about my credibility (especially undeserved ones). I repeat my request that he refactor.

If there are further steps that I can take to set things back on track I will gladly do so. Bear in mind, please, that I've had very lengthy chats with Jaakobou during the last 24 hours and have put off other commitments to give this immediate attention. Durova 17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Such steps would be to avoid back-room communication and instead strive toward open-ness, especially at the critical operative junction. Had we been consulted about the amended box, instead of seeing it implemented without discussion, we could have explained how offensive it is, by virtue of the exams box still very closely resembling the mourning box. But inertia breeds inertia, we knew that already. El_C 17:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

El C, in a mentoring relationship back channel communication can be a very healthy thing. Often it takes the form of let-me-get-this-off-my-chest or should I post this? (and the answer is occasionally goodness no). This particular instance unfolded in real time and I was composing a post that would have followed up on Jaakobou's apology and refactor; you warned him with a block before I could complete it. Durova 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I, for my part, am ready to archive this in the interests of moving on (although I do remain distinctly displeased). Any objections? El_C 18:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

El_C, I have made two apologies and done my best to correct the problem. It's high time I get back to my studies. Those upcoming exams were my main reason for posting in the first place but if there are other positive steps I can take to resolve your displeasure, please let me know. Jaakobou 18:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's chalk this up as one ugly misunderstanding. Sensitive subjects + sleep deprivation are the bane of harmonious editing. Now it's high time I got to those Maori textiles (and some other things). Best regards, Durova 18:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Traditional unionist

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

The bulk of what is herein is a content dispute; which should be, but isn't, being addressed on the article's talk page. I suggest that be taken there. What is relevant to arbitration enforcement is the claim that this editor's editing of this article is disruptive. This is not demonstrated by the diffs, nor by the article's history tab. The terms of probation under this RFAR are drawn to prevent personal attacks, incivility, and edit warring. Those are not issues here, so imposing probation would accomplish nothing. GRBerry 14:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Current issue moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles/Enforcement requests. Case link Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. Thatcher 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This editor is a self-admitted member of the Ulster Unionist Party and Young Unionists, and his recent editing to the latter article is giving me cause for concern. In particular edits like this where he claims everything is referenced by these two sources:

• 'The Ulster Unionist Party, 1882-1973 : its development and organisation' (1973), J F Harbinson
• 'A history of the Ulster Unionist Party : protest, pragmatism and pessimism' (2004) Graham Walker

This is complete nonsense. As can be seen, the former was published in 1973, and the latter in May 2004. After checking the latter on Amazon Online Reader (only available on the UK site, not the US one) there are only three mentions of "Young Unionists" in the entire book.

• The first is on page 251, where it talks about Trimble giving a speech to the YU.
• The second is on page 262, where it says the YU and Orange Order "adopted strident anti-Agreement stances", and accounted for 154 seats of the 860 strong UUC body.
• The last is on page 282 (which is actually a footnotes page giving various details) and says Jeffrey Donaldson has a strong background in the YU.

As the first source cannot source anything post-1973, this leaves the following information unsourced, despite TU claiming it was sourced by the book.

• "The body re-emerged under the Chairmanship of David McNarry and continued to thrive throughout the 1980s"
• "It lost members at a greater proportion and sooner than the rest of the party"
• "and by the 2004 AGM only the outgoing Officers could vote due to a voting system designed for a much larger organisation"
• "A new body has again emerged, under the UUP's new Constitution. This means that it is no longer a loosely affiliated body, but an integral constituent part of the UUP, with enhanced representation at the levels of party governance and greater integration"
• "Their website contained the first party political weblog in Northern Ireland"

Some sources were added in an additional edit, but they seem to be sourcing events at the 2004 AGM, when the first source is from January 2004 and states the AGM will take place in March, and the second source was published a few days later and still pre-dates the AGM.

Given the COI and what seems to be a clear misrepresentation of what a source says (in this case - not much!) I welcome further discussion about whether his editing to that article is compatible with an acceptable standard. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a particularly mischievious and disruptive form of POV-editing, because when citing books it is often the case that other editors don't access to them, so to a largely degree use of such sources is taken on trust.

Given the long history of edit-warring etc by Traditional unionist (talk · contribs), I don't feel inclined to treat this sort of thing at all lightly, but I suggest that we should first hear what TU has to say about your evidence (which is very persuasive). May I suggest that you notify TU that you have raised the issue here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that shortly. I've discovered there's some more coverage in the book, after a search for "Young Unionist". Details for completeness are as follows:

• Page 148. Brookeborough spoke at a YU dinner
• Page 185. Following the 1970 general election, party dissidents including the YU Council turned up the heat on the leadership.
• Page 206. Footnotes page, mentions 1971 proposal to cut YU representation on the UUC.

If by some miracle the information is sourced in the book without mentions of the phrase "Young Unionist" or "Young Unionists" I'd like to know exact page numbers, and I can quickly verify it myself. I did search for McNarry for the 1980s information, and there was nothing relevant on that search either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Young Unionists is a more modern form of the orginisations name. The more formal Ulster Young Unionist Council was more common in these publications. Harbinson's book covers the formation of the orginisation fully. I have to say I didn't realise that Brian Faulkner's memoirs and David Hume's Phd thesis (as published) wern't listed as sources, I though they were. Please read ] and ] for some context to my reluctance to take the users edits constructively.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

As above, a search for "Young Unionist" provided no relevant information either. Faulkner died in 1977, and Hume's thesis was published in 1996, so the only thing that could be sourced by them is McNarry. So there's still unsourced information outstanding that you claimed was sourced. Who tagged the information isn't relevant (and I know quite a lot about this situation), you claimed it was sourced. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's always a wise thing to never reveal one's politics (at least on one's home page). Why? It compromises one's standing in editing & discussing political articles. I give this advice to all Wiki editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Only tho those who make it so. I'm curious about the statement "and I know quite a lot about this situation" - how?Traditional unionist (talk) 12:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I pay attention, it's clear you two know each other but that's largely irrelvant. Regardless of who places a {{fact}} tag, it still needs sourcing. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll use Unionist & Irish nationalist examples here. It's only a theory on my part - if one goes to your page (TU) and learns you're a Unionist? Then editors (quite likely Irish nationalist), may get the impression that your edits/postings have Unionist PoV behind them. Also, if one reveals him/herself to be an Irish nationalist? He/she might create the impression of Irish nationalist PoV behind their edits/postings aswell. Same thing for Israeli/Palestinian or (in my country) Canadian federalism/Quebec seperatism. My point is? One shouldn't be restricted to what one has on their home-page; but I've found that, hiding one's politics helps one come across more as NPOV. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming across as something, and being it, are two differnt things. I am honest about my background and opinions.Traditional unionist (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I've never claimed you weren't honest TU. Also, I would never support any form of 'censurship' on anybody 'home page'. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In the defence of TU I dont think it matters if you tell people your beliefs. I have had interaction with TU on a couple of articles and our beliefs are at opposite ends of the divide, but I try always to WP:AGF, this is what make IMO Misplaced Pages a great project in that all beliefs are heard equally. I dont think that there is this great Unionist or Republican plot to portray articles in a favourable way. It only becomes a problem when an editor refuses to abide the rules of Misplaced Pages and insert POV or edit war. I think we are being side-tracked a little from what ONIH has produced here. BigDunc (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not 'accusing' anbody of a political agenda (ONIH and I had a little disagreement, weeks ago). Note, that I use the word impression. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wakedream

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

User:Wakedream blocked as a sockpuppet; referred to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream for further investigation. MastCell  18:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Wakedream (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

It is suspected that User:BryanFromPalatine, aka User:Neutral Good, aka User:Shibumi2, is back again as Wakedream (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). His various comments began to draw concern, especially after threads at User_talk:Wakedream#Prior_account and User_talk:Jehochman#NPOV_and_Waterboarding. Wakedream edited random articles on December 17 2007, but since March 8 2008 has waded into waterboarding with language and arguments similar to the advocacy of BFP and NG. His extremely negative reaction to Jehochman's simple question here also set off warning alarms. Lawrence § t/e 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

 Redflag This is not a new editor. Jehochman 13:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

•  Unrelated to Neutral Good; this is a different sockpuppeteer and it is a very deep rabbit hole. File this as an RFCU and ping Raul654 to look at it; I will pick it up after work if its not done by then. Thatcher 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

(clerks please feel free to move this as needed) I was contacted offline to look into this (I think maybe that might not be a good approach as it can lead to duplicate efforts). I concur with Thatcher here, there's no provable connection to NeutralGood/BryanFromPalantine et al, but something is up... I've shared some of my other findings with Thatcher as well. ++Lar: t/c 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RFCU filed: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Wakedream. Thanks guys. Lawrence § t/e 15:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Grandy Grandy

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Grandy Grandy and Osli73 both banned from editing Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen for one month. Thatcher 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia sets high standards for Decorum and Editorial process for all Balkan related articles. I believe that Grandy Grandy is breaking these by repeatedly making controversial and WP:POV edits on a number of Balkan related articles without any discussion on the relevant Talk pages and, sometimes, despite notices by administrators to respect the editorial process. A number of examples:

• Bosnian mujahideen: Despite a specific request by the involved Mediation coordinator (User:Vassyana) to all editors "to stop reverting and/or making significant changes. As Osli73 has done below, please propose any significant changes here on the talk page. If any changes you make are reverted, please do not escalate the matter into a revert war. Instead, raise the issue on the talk page for discussion" Grandy Grandy has made a number of major reverts/controversial edits without attempting to discuss these (see , and ). It should be noted that this is an article which GG on several occasions has tried to delete alltogether (, and ).
• Mujahideen: here GG has repeatedly reverted or extensively edited (, and ) the section on Bosnia in line with his POV edits of the Bosnian mujahideen article, again, without seeking any consulation or discussion on the Talk page (despite being encouraged to do so).
• Naser Oric: a number of controversial edits/reverts (, and ) without any attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page, despite encouragement to do so.
• Alija Izetbegovic: again, a number of controversial edits/reverts (, and ) without any attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page.
• Bosnian War: again, a number of controversial edits/reverts ( and ) without any real attempt to motivate or discuss these on the Talk page despite encouragement to do so.
• Finally, based on this reply and the fact that the reverts by GG are the same as those by Dragon of Bosnia, currently on one weeks block for similar transgression, I believe that these edits are being done in collusion.

RegardsOsli73 (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment

First of all, I don't agree with @OSLI73. He is the one who started to vandalize articles, I am the one among the others (Dragon, HarisM, Dchall1, Live Forever etc) who repaired the damage. And here is the proof:

@OSLI73's log of vandalism:

• 12:23, 5 December 2007, Stifle blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Bosnian Mujahideen)
• 07:45, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month.
• 07:37, 24 July 2007 WikiLeon blocked Osli73 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months.
• 02:26, 23 March 2007 Thatcher131 blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Kosovo)
• 01:48, 1 March 2007 Jayjg blocked Osli73 (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (violation of arbcom revert parole on Srebrenica massacre again)
• 09:48, 18 December 2006 Srikeit blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Sockpuppeteering and directly violating his arbcom probation and revert parole)
• 00:49, 5 September 2006 Blnguyen blocked Osli73 with an expiry time of 96 hours ‎ (did about 10 reverts on Srebrenica massacre in about 2 hours)

Second of all, @OSLI73 is blanking articles (removing sourced parts he doesn't like).

For example @OSLI73 deleted a part from Bosnian War which is clear example of vandalism - blanking WP:Vandalism: "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason."

He deleted this part:

According to numerous ICTY judgments the conflict involved Bosnia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) as well as Croatia.

Soureces:

• Summary of ICTY verdicts I
• Summary of ICTY verdicts II

I asked him why, for a few times, got no answer. He just repeats the same old story he wrote above which is not related to his deletions in order to get Arbitration enforcement cause he doesn't like Radio Free Europe source, doens't like ICTY source, doesn't like this and that...I am not willing to support his idea about arbitration cause there are a lof of other users who worked hard to write smth, and now @OSLI73 is trying to undo that cause he doesn't like some sources. Grandy Grandy (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Grandy Grandy comments above:

1. It would be good if he answered the issues that I raised above, instead of bringing other issues
2. I don't see what old transgressions of WP:3RR have to do with the issue at hand
3. Grandy Grandy has not made any attempt to discuss the edits/reverts he has made (at least not prior to me making this complaint) despite encouragement to do so. Please see the relevant talk pages.
4. Grandy Grandy has made major edits to the Bosnian mujahideen article despite being specifically asked by the admin involved not to do so.
5. Grandy Grandy seems to be arguing that as long as information is sourced it is not POV or inappropriate and should never be removed. My belief is that appropriate sources is only one condition for inclusion in an article. Sourced information can still be POV.

In conclusion, I would encourage Grandy Grandy to reply to the specific issues I raised above. RegardsOsli73 (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In reply to Osli73 comments above:

1. I answered all the issues on the appropriate talk pages.
2. Well "old transgressions of WP:3RR" is all but old transgressions of WP:3RR. Sockpuppeteering and directly violating your arbcom probation and revert parole, violating revert limit on Srebrenica massacre, rule violation on Bosnian Mujahidee isn't just the matter of WP:3RR, it's much more.
3. Grandy Grandy has not made any attempt to discuss the edits... Well, isn't true:,,,the real problem is you never answered my questions about blanking. You just skip it and continue to revert which is obvious vandalism.
4. Regarding Bosnian Mujahideen, I just improved the article per comments in AfD, cause other users agreed that the name must be changed as you fabricated it (the title isn't present in any of your sources). Most of the users also voted for the deletion of that article: as it's cloned, POV fork or collection of unreliable source (WP:RS).
5. Please read WP:RS and WP:Vandalism. Persistent removal and blanking of the high-quality and neutral international sources in very sensitive Bosnian War article (Summary of ICTY verdicts I,Summary of ICTY verdicts II) is probably in appliance with ur belief that appropriate sources is only one condition for inclusion in an article and that sourced information can still be POV, but it isn't in appliance with Misplaced Pages rules, cause the sentence started with According to that source. It wasn't just included as a pure fact, it designated the source (International Tribunal), unlike your edits when you included many other speculation about Al Qaeda etc. without relevant source. Grandy Grandy (talk) 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• relisting with a new timestamp pending resolution. Thatcher 12:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Response I don't see an active attempt at mediation; it looks like Vassyana is periodically stepping in to try and clam the dispute, but there is no ongoing MEDCAB or MEDCOM mediation that I can see. I think the best thing to do here is to ban both Osli73 (talk · contribs) and Grandy Grandy (talk · contribs) from editing Bosnian mujahideen and Mujahideen for one month, and encourage them to discuss the article on the talk page an engage formal mediation if necessary. Thatcher 00:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG (talk · contribs) civility problems

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Blocked by FT2. Thatcher 01:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Per the decision at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance, PHG is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages of articles relating to medieval or ancient history, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. He has been unable to remain civil and refrain from attacking other editors: , , , ,

Since PHG seems unwilling to take to heart the various reminders about civility and collaborative editing, and since his recent actions on article talkpages are continuing to be disruptive and keep other editors away from more productive work, I recommend that PHG be blocked for a short time, perhaps 48 hours, to allow other editors to get back to work. Hopefully this block will be a wake-up call, and avoid further restrictions on his ability to contribute to talk pages. Shell 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it seems that FT2 has already blocked PHG . Shell 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Coming here to post a note following blocking. See his talk page for the full note. By chance, we seem to have concurred on duration - I blocked for 48 hours. FT2  20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Misplaced Pages:List of banned users has been updated by Moreschi. John Vandenberg (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Request that he be added to Misplaced Pages:List of banned users. Reasons: Persistent abusive sockpuppetry, personal attacks (particularly against User:Rockpocket) and incivility. Case link Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles. - Kittybrewster ☎ 23:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

VK is blocked indefinitely, which means he is banned unless some admin decides to unblock him. Listing on the banned users page has no significance that I am aware of, it certainly does not prevent an admin from unbanning VK if the admin thinks it is defensible to do so. Is there some reason this would be a contentious listing, or is there some reason to insist on a bookkeeping formality? Thatcher 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As I recollect, this was not Arbitration enforcement but instead a decision made at WP:ANI. And indeed, the block log reflects that. Find the ANI discussion; that will show the actual reasons for the indefinite block. I think this was indeed a ban, but the ANI archive will be more accurate than anyone's speculation or recollection. GRBerry 02:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to formalise the uncontentious community ban. I suspect it would take a application by Arbcom to unban him. His block log suggests he is a close relation of Lazarus. I am quite happy to post the request elsewhere. - Kittybrewster ☎ 08:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done. Not that hard, surely? Moreschi (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)